9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es disallowance u/s 14A cannot be made. On observing the balance sheet, we find that the assessee has sufficient own funds much more than the investments. Thus we delete the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) made - Decided against revenue. Disallowance relating to prior period expenses - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- For the assessment year 2009-10 [ 2014 (11) TMI 1174 - ITAT DELHI] accepted the claim of the assessee for netting off of prior period income against prior period expenses. Decided against revenue. - I.T.A No. 7445/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2022 - SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate; Shri Ashish Goyal, C.A.; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 1 of the synopsis submits that the assessee has own funds at 1,46,780.47 lakhs and whereas the investments were at 1957.39 lakhs. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgement of the apex court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No. 9606 of 2011 dated 09.09.2021). 4. The ld. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. It is observed from the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) that the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) towards interest has been deleted by the ld. CIT (Appeals) following the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA. No. 2211 (Del) of 2013 dated 19.11.2014. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 29 of Notes on accounts. The ld. Counsel submits that the net amount of Rs.60.99 lakhs was declared as income in profit and loss account and offered for tax. It is submitted that the assessee company has been consistently following the policy of netting out prior period income with prior period expenses and these expenses may pertain to earlier periods, but have crystallized only in the current year i.e. 2016-17. The ld. Counsel submits that the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2009-10 sustained the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) in accepting the stand of the assessee which was consistently followed from year to year applying Principle of Consistency. The ld. Counsel submits that the decision of the Tribunal for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008-09. The First Appellate Authority has, on the principle of consistency, accepted the contentions of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the same. Thus ground no.3 and 4 are dismissed. 9. Following the above decision for assessment year 2009-10 the Tribunal in its order dated 22.01.2020 in ITA. No. 4668 (Del) of 2017 for assessment year 2014-15, held as under:- 7.1 The second issue of prior period expenditure is admittedly covered by the Order of ITAT Dated 19.11.2014 (supra). Following the same reasons for decision for the A. Y. 2009-2010 on identical facts, we do not find any merit in the Departmental appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. Facts being identical, respectfully following the said decision, we upho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
